Intelligence Scales in Education

Intelligence scales are standardized tools used to evaluate the cognitive abilities of individuals, particularly in educational settings. Among the most recognized scales are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). These tests are typically administered by trained professionals such as school psychologists and are crucial for assessing learning disabilities and identifying gifted students. The results are expressed as intelligence quotients (IQ), with a mean score of 100, where scores above 130 indicate superior intelligence.

Historically, intelligence testing began with the Binet-Simon Scale, developed in the early 20th century to help classify students in the French educational system. Modern intelligence scales incorporate various cognitive tasks, including verbal and mathematical reasoning, thereby providing insights into an individual’s overall intellectual capabilities. While these tests are valued for their diagnostic utility and predictive validity regarding academic success, they also face criticism. Concerns include potential biases against culturally diverse groups and the inability to measure creative and emotional intelligence, which are also vital for overall success in life. Understanding intelligence scales is essential for educators and psychologists in making informed decisions regarding student placement and support.

Published in: 2021

By: Merritt, R. D.

Subject Terms

Intelligence Scales in Education

Intelligence scales are used to measure intelligence. Intelligence scales and tests which are individually administered include the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Intelligence tests in educational settings are typically administered by a school psychologist or other trained examiner. Intelligence tests are widely used in the assessment of learning disabilities for special-education services and in the identification of gifted students. Statistical analyses are commonly conducted to analyze and evaluate intelligence-test scores. Intelligence tests have advantages in that they are highly regarded by both educational researchers and school personnel. Research has demonstrated the benefits of cross-battery intelligence- test assessment to measure and compare theory-based cognitive factors.

Educational Psychology

Overview

Standardized intelligence scales are tests used as assessment instruments to measure the intelligence of individuals. Although there are group intelligence tests, this article will be concerned primarily with individually administered measures of intelligence. The most widely used and educationally applied intelligence scales are the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

Generally speaking, an individual's intelligence is dependent on general mental abilities involved in processes such as learning, using language, reasoning, classifying, making calculations, and adjusting to novel situations. Intelligence is related to an individual's performance on intelligence tests that include items requiring various tasks--verbal, mathematical, perceptual, and problem-solving, for example. The performance of individuals on intelligence tests is compared with others of the same age group and/or level of ability. Thus, intelligence quotients (IQs) are based on an individual's norm group (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Weber, 1991).

The mean intelligence scale or intelligence test IQ score is defined as 100. IQs above 130 are generally considered as superior. Scores between IQ 85 and 115 are considered to be within the average range of intelligence (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987). Scores between IQ 70 and 85 are considered low average. IQ measures can be thought of as tests of mental age. High scores on intelligence tests mean that children are developing more rapidly than their age-mates. The environment in which a child develops is critical in enhancing intelligence, particularly fluid intelligence. Environmental and emotional factors during childhood and adolescence can cause IQ scores to vary moderately (Kirk & Gallagher, 1989; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Piaget, 1981; Roid, Shaughnessy, & Greathouse, 2005).

History

In 1905, the French educator Alfred Binet (1857-1911) and Theophile, or Théodore, Simon (1873-1961) developed tests to use in classifying students for entrance and appropriate grade placement in a new nationwide French public school system. Binet and Simon sought to develop the most diverse tests possible to determine the frequency of success of students as a function of age. The original Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence consisted of 30 subtests of age-graded items--questions to answer, problems to solve, and tasks to perform--which children of different ages should be able to do. These tests were the precursors of all later intelligence tests (Piaget, 1981; Weber, 1991).

The Binet-Simon Scale

Based on the Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence, a child who can answer questions that average nine-year-olds can answer are assigned a mental age (MA), of nine (Weber, 1991). The child's MA, as measured by the intelligence test, is then compared to his or her actual chronological age (CA). The German psychologist William Stern concluded that simple comparisons between MA and CA are insensitive to degrees. Stern advocated using a ratio of MA to CA to measure intelligence. However, in Stern's historic formula, he multiplied the initial quotient by 100 in order to eliminate the decimal point. Thus, Stern's formula for this intelligence quotient (IQ) is: MA ÷ CA x 100 = IQ. Examples of the calculation of three different intelligence quotients is shown in Table 1. In Case 1 of Table 1, where a child's CA exceeds his or her mental age, the child is classified as "slow" and is assigned to a lower grade level. In Case 2 where a child's MA equals his or her chronological age, the resulting IQ is 100, the mean IQ level. In Case 3 where a child's MA exceeds his CA, the child is classified as "bright" and is resultantly assigned to a higher grade level (Weber, 1991).

Table 1 The Calculation of IQs from Mental Age & Chronological Age

Case Mental Age (MA) Chronological Age (CA) IQ Calculation: MA ÷ CA x 100 Resulting IQ 1 9 12 9 ÷ 12 x 100 75 2 9 9 9 ÷ 9 x 100 100 3 9 6 9 ÷ 6 x 100 150 Modified from Weber, 1991.

The Stanford-Binet Scale

In 1916, Lewis Terman (1877-1956), a Stanford University psychologist, revised the original Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence. The revised Binet-Simon Scale, titled the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, was restandardized on new populations of children and published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. Terman was also well known for his work with gifted children. In 1920, he began a longitudinal study that was to continue for more than 50 years in which he followed over 1500 gifted children into maturity and old age (Dallman, Rouch, Char, & DeBoer, 1982; Kirk & Gallagher, 1989; Weber, 1991).

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is the traditional intelligence scale and cognitive intelligence test battery. It is perhaps the best known of the individually administered measures of intelligence, and is more suitable for testing children than late adolescents and adults (Borg & Gall, 1989).

There are newer versions of the Stanford-Binet that are linked to older, previous editions, including the original version. There are full-scale or complete cognitive batteries of the regular Stanford-Binet and abbreviated batteries (Glutting, 1989). A well-known earlier edition of the instruments representing the third revision is the Stanford-Binet Form L-M version published in 1960, comprised of two scales serving different purposes. Unfortunately, the Stanford-Binet Form L-M has less power to measure IQs at the high end of intelligence and has norms that discriminated against gifted students (Silverman & Kearney, 1992). The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, or SB5, was introduced in 2003.

The Stanford-Binet can be administered in long-form or full-scale, or in short-form via any of a number of subtests that represent designated areas such as:

* Verbal Reasoning,

* Abstract-Value Reasoning,

* Quantitative Reasoning, and

* Short-Term Memory (Weber, 1991).

The Stanford-Binet measures of intelligence quotients or IQs yield standard-age, full-scale/long-form, test-composite or total-composite scores and short-form area scores. The Verbal Reasoning Subtest, for example, provides a verbal IQ score.

The Wechsler Scales

The individual intelligence tests that are most often administered are the Wechsler tests, originally dubbed the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scales, which were developed by David Wechsler, and were published by the Psychological Corporation of San Antonio, Texas (Dallman et al., 1982; Weber, 1991).

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale has also published a number of versions. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) is administered to school-age children. It is a "downward extension" of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or WAIS and is appropriate for use in testing children between the ages of 5 and 17 (Borg & Gall, 1989; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Weber, 1991). The fourth version of the scale, or WISC-IV, was introduced in 2003. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition maintains many of the features of prior editions (Mayes & Calhoun, 2007).

Another version of the Wechsler that was published for younger children was the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, or WPPSI. It was designed to test children between the ages of 4 and 6 and a half (Borg & Gall, 1989; Field, 1987). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised or WAIS-R is administered to individuals over age 16 and is suitable for use in testing late adolescents and adults (Borg & Gall, 1989; Weber, 1991). There are also editions that are published in languages other than English (e.g., Japanese, Spanish, French, and Hebrew).

The Wechsler can be implemented in full-scale/full-form and also in abbreviated or split-half short forms making use of various individual subtests of interest. The Wechsler scale has two subscales: a verbal scale and a performance scale. Each edition of the Wechsler has a somewhat variant number of verbal and performance subtests. The verbal subscale includes questions and tasks that involve information, arithmetic, vocabulary, comprehension, similarities, and "digit span." The Digit Span subtest is a measure of short-term memory. The verbal subtests require students to listen to questions and to reply orally. The performance scale is made up of visual-motor tasks and includes several subtest short forms. The subtests are:

* Coding or Mazes,

* Picture Completion,

* Picture Arrangement,

* Object Assembly, and

* Block Design (Axelrod & Paolo, 1998; Comninel & Bordieri, 2001; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Lynn et al., 2005; Nicholson & Alcorn, 1993; Weber, 1991; Wyver & Markham, 1998).

The Wechsler scales have achieved increasing prominence in the field of intelligence testing due in part to the fact that they yield a number of useful subscores in addition to an overall IQ score. WISC-R yields total-test scores called full-scale IQ (FSIQ) scores, which are comprehensive measures of intelligence, and two other global scores--a Verbal IQ (VIQ) and a Performance IQ (PIQ) (Borg & Gall, 1989; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987). The VIQ is calculated by adding the scaled scores of all of the verbal subtests except Digit Span. The PIQ is obtained from five of the performance subtest scale scores (Nicholson & Alcorn, 1993).

The WISC-R also yields factor-based scores on four different indices:

* Verbal Comprehension Index or VCI,

* Perceptual Organization Index or POI,

* Freedom from Distractibility Index or FDI, and

* Processing Speed Index or PSI (Calhoun & Mayes, 2005).

In addition, a test of memory impairment yields the Wechsler Memory Scale Memory Quotient (WMS MQ) (Prifitera & Barley, 1985).

Other Intelligence Scales

There are a variety of other intelligence scales that are sometimes used in intelligence testing. These include:

* The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test or K-BIT,

* The Leiter International Performance Scale and the Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised,

* The Merrill Palmer Developmental Scale-Revised,

* The Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence or FTII, and

* The Bayley Scales of Infant Development.

Applications

Administration

Standardized intelligence scale instruments require special training for their administration and interpretation. The tests are typically administered individually by a school psychologist or other trained examiner. The examiner is usually involved in the selection of tests that are administered and in the general approach for administration. The experience level of the examiner in the facilitation of tests is important in avoiding examiner and administration errors. The use of the same examiner can minimize the factor of errors arising from administration, possible bias, and/or influence. Some intelligence tests have advantages and disadvantages in the relative ease or difficulty of accurate administration (Avant, 1987; Dallmann et al., 1982).

Administration may involve a full battery or a short-form procedure. Any of a number of subtests can be administered as a screening device when complete administration is not feasible (Haynes, 1985).

Because the performance of students may be influenced by the conditions of administration, the tests may be administered more than once. Students may suffer the effects of anxiety or have problems with seating or other physical arrangements in a first administration that make a second administration necessary. An examinee's scores from different administrations, previous and current, can be compared.

Measurement

The measurement of an individual school-aged child's intelligence provides information about his or her overall or global intellectual ability and the specific factors of intelligence. The measurement of the child's higher or lower levels of cognition include his or her relative cognitive ability, cognitive skills and sub-skills, cognitive processes and capacities, cognitive development and functioning, and cognitive strengths and weaknesses. In order to measure the child's intelligence, the various specific aptitudes or abilities contributing to his or her total behavior must be measured (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Nicholson & Alcorn, 1993; Roid, Shaughnessy, & Greathouse, 2005).

G Factor Intelligence

Measurements of intelligence emphasize g factor intelligence. The g factor is the most general and relevant cognitive ability and is one of the most important predictors of academic achievement. It has also been found to relate to a variety of other socially relevant behavioral outcomes (Juan-Espinosa, Cuevas, Escorial, & Garcia, 2006; Robinson, 1992).

The measurement of intelligence involves the measurement of constructs--psychological characteristics or variables such as verbal functioning and reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and memory processing. Intellectual ability is positively correlated with an individual's speed of mentally processing information. This proposition, as a theory of intelligence, has strong supportive evidence and underlies most tests of mental abilities (Osterlind, 1998). Among other types of exercises used in intelligence testing and measurement are inductive reasoning tasks. Inductive reasoning can be defined as the ability to apply specific experiences to general rules. Inductive reasoning problems are commonly expressed as analogies (Osterlind, 1998).

Determining Intellectual Performance

Intelligence assessment can be used to determine the factors influencing the intellectual performance, development, and capabilities of students. Schoolchildren's performance can be compared with the use of recent norms so as to identify the typical intellectual performance of high achievement-level students and the intellectual performance of low achievement-level students.

Relative performance in general or global areas of intelligence is recognized by the variation in full-scale IQ points and in significantly lower or higher FSIQs. Children's performance varies on the dichotomous constructs of verbal abilities and performance abilities as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scales. This can be recognized by the variation in verbal IQ points and lower or higher verbal IQ scores. Performance areas of intelligence, as measured by performance scales, reveal differences in performance IQ and relative lower or higher IQ points (Kaufman, 1994).

The fact that there is comparability from one age to another permits performance to be compared across multiple age levels, from children to adolescents and adults. Children's mental performance also varies at different ages. There is a range in ability levels (e.g., II through V) of students demonstrated in IQ tests and IQs.

There are gender performance differences exhibited in IQs. Males are consistently more variable than females in areas such as spatial visualization, quantitative reasoning, spelling, and general knowledge. Using the Wechsler Intelligence Scales, these cognitive gender differences decrease for adolescents but not for adults (Feingold, 1992; Feingold, 1993; Lynn et al., 2005).

Identification of Gifted and Learning Disabled Children

Intelligence testing is used for the selection and placement of students in various educational programs. Binet invented his metrical scale of intelligence with a view to determining the degree of advancement or degree of disability. Intelligence is assessed by advancement or disability according to the mean statistical age for correct solutions (Piaget, 1981).

Intelligence testing has also been commonly used to identify gifted children. In the past, many programs for the gifted relied almost exclusively on norm-referenced tests of intelligence for the assessment of students. Early definitions of giftedness were based on IQ scores above a certain designated point--115, 130, 140, et cetera--on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. However, both the Stanford-Binet and the WISC-R are used for the identification of academically talented students (Kirk & Gallagher, 1989; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Robinson, 1992).

Intelligence tests are widely used in the assessment of learning disabilities for special education services. The scales are used as diagnostic tests to screen, identify, select, and place children in school programs and settings especially at the early-childhood and preschool levels. Among the types of special education students assessed by intelligence tests include individuals who are experiencing cognitive delays and have informational-processing deficits, those with cognitive and learning disabilities, the intellectually disabled, those with developmental disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), children with serious mental and emotional disorders, and behaviorally disturbed children. Most states generally require students to achieve an IQ score in the low average range, that is, 70 to 85, to qualify for special education services for the learning disabled. Below-average intellectual performance is a criterion for intellectual disability (Avant, 1987; Comninel & Bordieri, 2001; Field, 1987; Flynn, 1985; Gussin & Javorsky, 1995; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Roid et al., 2005; Ross-Kidder, 2000; Shah & Holmes, 1985; Silverstein, 1984; Zimet & Adler, 1990). Intelligence testing can also be used to assess preschool children with autism and high-functioning autism (Bolte & Proustka, 2004; Delmolino, 2006; Minshew, Turner, & Goldstein, 2005).

The intellectual functioning of visually- and hearing-impaired students can be assessed using adapted, modified, and/or specially designed measures. Most of the individuals referred for testing are eligible for modifications and/or accommodations. An adaptation of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the Perkins-Binet Intelligence Scale, is designed to be used with visually-impaired individuals aged 2 to 22. The latter adaptation has two forms: one for those with usable vision and another for those with nonusable vision. The verbal section of the WISC-R has also been used to assess schoolchildren with visual impairments (James, 1984; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Ross-Kidder, 2000; Wyver & Markham, 1998).

Statistical Analysis of Intelligence Scores

Statistics has wide application and multifaceted uses with regard to the analysis of intelligence test scores. Sources of measurement error in intelligence testing include scoring, time sampling, and content sampling. The magnitude of errors are explored with standard deviation of scores and standard errors of estimate and measurement (Hanna, 1981).

The collection of validity and reliability information is essential in establishing the efficacy of intelligence measures. Test-retest reliability and alternate-form reliability are types of reliability often used in intelligence testing. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales have proved their usefulness in educational research and practice because of the considerable amount of evidence that has been collected regarding its validity and reliability (Borg & Gall, 1989).

Comparisons and correlations are made among different intelligence scale instruments, versions, and forms. Correlation coefficients between full scales/full protocols and short/subtest forms can be positive or negative, consistently low or high, significant or non-significant. The quality of means, analyses of variances and covariances, comparability of different scales, degree of parallelism of scales, similarities and variabilities across scales, and subtests based on test and subtest scores are analyzed (Evans, 1985; Quereshi & Ostrowski, 1985).

Viewpoints

Advantages

Intelligence tests are highly regarded by both educational researchers and school personnel. They provide a relatively rapid and convenient estimation of an individual's general level of intelligence. Intelligence tests are efficacious in predicting school achievement because they measure the aspects of intelligence required for success in school learning. They also serve as a vital diagnostic tool for children in special education. High-quality intelligence tests can produce objective measures of cognitive abilities, capacities, and functioning that are valid, reliable, and replicable (Borg & Gall, 1989; Piaget, 1981; Roid et al., 2005).

Disadvantages

Intelligence scales and IQ tests have limitations and drawbacks. They are expensive to use and can be administered and interpreted only by special personnel (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Piaget, 1981).

Many feel that society places too much weight on intelligence, versus other factors such as motivation and perseverance that are important to education. Intelligence tests are not able to assess vital abilities and dimensions such as creativity, leadership potential, and specific talents. Many assessment professionals focus on full-scale global scores and do not explore the whole-score intelligence profile (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Roid et al., 2005).

There is no uniformity or standardization of practices with regard to how states and school districts use IQ scores. For example, as relates to eligibility for services for gifted students, IQ scores of 115 may qualify in one state or school district whereas a score of 130, 140, or higher may be required in another. The ultimate uses of test scores are dictated by legislation and regulation rather than clinical exploration (Lewis & Doorlag, 1987; Roid et al., 2005).

Intelligence tests have long been criticized because they involve knowledge of language, and results may not fully reflect the real abilities of children with language problems or for whom English is a second language. Intelligence tests have also been charged with being biased, favoring middle- and upper-class students and discriminating against those who are learning disabled or come from minority cultures (Dallmann et al., 1982; Lewis & Doorlag, 1987).

Research

Research has explored the relationship between intelligence tests, made correlations of intelligence scales with other measures, and examined the possibility of substitution of one instrument for another in studies.

Cross-Battery Assessment

A good example of the value of drawing on research findings from past studies is examining the related theory associated with the development of what has come to be known as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll or CHC model of intelligence (Roid et al., 2005). The theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence was developed by Raymond Cattell (1943). Cattell's theory was expanded and detailed to include other factors by John Horn (1985). The hierarchical nature of cognitive factors and the prominence of the fluid and crystallized factors of intelligence was verified by John Carroll (1993). The end result of this evolutionary theory development was the Cattell-Horn-Carroll model, which increased the validity of intelligence test interpretation by permitting comparisons to be made across many batteries (Roid et al., 2005). Because the subtests of major intelligence batteries are normed separately, subtests from different batteries can be administered to develop results that provide a very thorough intelligence assessment of an individual. Thus, this research has cumulatively shown the benefits of "cross-battery assessment"--using individual subtests across batteries to measure and compare theory-based cognitive factors (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998; Roid et al., 2005).

The CHC model and related theory have established the multifaceted nature of intelligence (Roid et al., 2005). The Stanford-Binet V, for example, has a hierarchical theoretical model consisting of the g or general factor and five additional cognitive factors:

* Fluid reasoning,

* Knowledge or crystallized ability,

* Quantitative reasoning,

* Visual-spatial ability, and

* Working memory (Roid et al., 2005).

Ability vs. Age Levels

Another gravitation that has evolved in intelligence testing is that of basing the level of difficulty of items on ability levels or functional levels versus the original use of age levels. Stanford-Binet has traditionally had ability levels built in since 1916 (Roid et al., 2005). This practice allows an individual's general level of intellectual functioning to be initially identified and then the remainder of the intelligence test is custom-tailored to that person's ability level. Additionally, Roid et al. (2005) have found that ability levels provide greater precision and reliability in measures of intelligence within a shorter time period.

Terms & Concepts

Chronological Age (CA): An individual's actual numerical age in years since birth; a term used in calculating IQ.

Constructs: A psychological characteristic or variable such as verbal reasoning or memory processing that is measured in intelligence testing.

G Factor: Also general factor; a common factor in all tests of mental ability; the most global cognitive ability and one of the most important predictors of academic achievement.

Intelligence Profiles: Representations of individuals' intelligence(s) made up of their subtest scores across one or more intelligence test batteries used to compare characteristic cognitive abilities, common cognitive factors, prototypes, typical and atypical patterns, similarities and dissimilarities, and strengths and weaknesses.

Intelligence Quotients (IQ): Ratios of mental age (MA) to chronological age (CA) and calculated by the formula IQ = MA ÷ CA x 100.

Intelligence Scale: An intelligence test instrument that is used to measure intelligence.

Mental Age (MA): The age of most individuals who display a particular level of performance; a term used in calculating IQ.

Norm Group: A group of individuals against which an individual's test performance is compared.

Norm-Referenced Test: Tests in which comparisons can be made between a student and other students who form a norm group.

Short Forms: Subtests that are used as assessment instruments in only certain designated areas to measure specific constructs such as verbal reasoning or quantitative reasoning.

Standard Error of Measurement: A statistical and psychometric quantity that tells how much a test score would be expected to vary if a very large number of repeated measurements were made with the same instrument (Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Subtests: Short forms of full-scale tests or of a test battery that represent an assessment in only certain designated areas to measure constructs such as verbal reasoning or quantitative reasoning.

Test Battery: A group of several tests that are comparable, the results of which are used individually, in combination, and/or totally (Karmel & Karmel, 1978).

Test-Retest Reliability: A measure of reliability that is obtained by administering the same test again after a short time interval and by correlating the two sets of scores.

Bibliography

Avant, A. H. (1987). An examination of the relationship between the WISC-R and K- ABC for selection of students for special education programs. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED291785).

Axelrod, B. N., & Paolo, A. M. (1998). Utility of the WAIS-R seven-subtest short form as applied to the standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 10 , 33-37.

Bergeron, R., & Floyd, R. G. (2013). Individual part score profiles of children with intellectual disability: A descriptive analysis across three intelligence tests. School Psychology Review, 42 , 22-38. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e hh&AN=86877017&site=ehost-live

Bolte, S., & Poustka, F. (2004). Comparing the intelligence profiles of savant and nonsavant individuals with autistic disorder. Intelligence, 32 , 121-131.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New York, NY: Longman.

Calhoun, S. L., & Mayes, S. D. (2005). Processing speed in children with clinical disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 42 , 333-343. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e hh&AN=16381424&site=ehost-live

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of human intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 153-193.

Comninel, M. E., & Bordieri, J. E. (2001). Estimating WISC-III scores for special education students using the Dumont-Faro Short Form. Psychology in the Schools, 38 , 11-16. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9174382&site=ehost-live

Dallmann, M., Rouch, R. L., Char, L. Y. C., & DeBoer, J. J. (1982). The teaching of reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Delmolino, L. M. (2006). Brief report: Use of DQ for estimating cognitive ability in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36 , 959-963. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=224 37355&site=ehost-live

Dubovoy, S. C. (1996). The personal intelligences: Linking Gardner to Montessori. NAMTA Journal, 21 , 64-78.

Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. I. (1997). Comparison of the K-BIT with short forms of the WAIS-R in a neuropsychological population. Psychological Assessment, 9 , 57-62.

Evans, P. G. (1985). Accuracy of the Satz-Mogel procedure in estimating WAIS-R IQs that are in the normal range. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 , 100-103. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15845799&site=ehost-live

Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62 , 61-84.

Feingold, A. (1993). Cognitive gender differences: A developmental perspective. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 29 , 91-112. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&A N=9312292710&site=ehost-live

Field, M. (1987). Relation of language-delayed preschoolers' Leiter scores to later IQ. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16 , 111-115.

Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

Flanagan, R. (1995). The utility of the Kaufman assessment battery for children (K- ABC) and the Wechsler intelligence scales for linguistically different children: Clinical considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 32 , 5-11. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9504246303&site=ehost-live

Flynn, J. R. (1985). Wechsler Intelligence Tests: Do we really have a criterion of mental retardation? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90 , 236-244.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Glutting, J. J. (1989). Introduction to the structure and application of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale-fourth edition. Journal of School Psychology, 27 , 69-80.

Gussin, B., & Javorsky, J. (1995). The utility of the WISC-III Freedom from distractibility in the diagnosis of youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in a psychiatric sample. Diagnostique, 21 , 29-42.

Hanna, G. S. (1981). Estimating major sources of measurement error in individual intelligence scales: Taking our heads out of the sand. Journal of School Psychology, 19 , 370-376.

Haynes, J. P. (1985). Comparative validity of two WAIS-R short forms with clients of low IQ. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 , 282-284. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=ehh&AN=15845896&site=ehost-live

Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 267-300). New York, NY: Wiley.

James, R. P. (1984). A correlational analysis between the Raven's Matrices and WISC- R performance scales. Volta Review, 86 , 336-341.

Juan-Espinosa, M., Cuevas, L., Escorial, S., & Garcia, L. F. (2006). Testing the indifferentiation hypothesis during childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167 , 5-15. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a ph&AN=20275564&site=ehost-live

Karmel, L. J., & Karmel, M. O. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in the schools. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Kaufman, A. S. (1994). A reply to Macmann and Barnett: Lessons from the blind men and the elephant. School Psychology Quarterly, 9 , 199-207.

Kirk, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (1989). Educating exceptional children. Boston,

Kirk, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (1989). Educating exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1987). Teaching special students in the mainstream. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Lynn, R., Raine, A., Venables, P. H., Mednick, S. A., & Irving, P. (2005). Sex differences of the WISC-R in Mauritius. Intelligence, 33 , 527-533.

Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007). Wechsler intelligence scale for children- third- and fourth-edition: Predictors of academic achievement in children with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 22 , 234-249.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Merchán-Naranjo, J., Mayoral, M., Rapado-Castro, M., Llorente, C., Boada, L., Arango, C., & Parellada, M. (2012). Estimation of the intelligence quotient using Wechsler Intelligence Scales in children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 42 , 116-122. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69868171&sit e=ehost-live

Minshew, N. J., Turner, C. A., & Goldstein, G. (2005). The application of short forms of the Wechsler intelligence scales in adults and children with high functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35 , 45-52. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1618 3681&site=ehost-live

Mishra, S. P. (1982). Intelligence test performance as affected by anxiety and test administration procedures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 , 825-829.

Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64 , 22-27. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= ehh&AN=22288318&site=ehost-live

Nicholson, C. L., & Alcorn, C. L. 91993). Interpretation of the WISC-III and its subtests. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 668).

Osterlind, S. J. (1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance and other formats. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Piaget, J. (1981). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.

Prifitera, A., & Barley, W. P. (1985). Cautions in interpretations of comparisons between the WAIS-R and the Wechsler Memory Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 , 564-565.

Quereshi, M. Y., & Ostrowski, M. J. (1985). The comparability of three Wechsler adult intelligence scales in a college sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 , 397-407.

Robinson, N. M. (1992). Stanford-Binet IV, of course!: Time marches on. Roeper Review, 15 , 32-34.

Roid, G. H., Shaughnessy, M. F., & Greathouse, D. (2005). An interview with Gale Roid about the Stanford-Binet 5. North American Journal of Psychology, 7 ,

Retrieved October 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com /login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19790358&site=ehost-live

Ross-Kidder, K. (2000). Gender differences in psychometric profiles of adults with learning disabilities . Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445423).

Shah, A., & Holmes, N. (1985). The use of the Leiter international performance scale with autistic children: Brief report. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 15 , 195-203.

Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1992). The case for the Stanford-Binet L-M as a supplemental test. Roeper Review, 15 , 34-37.

Silverstein, A. B. (1984). Standard errors for short forms of Wechsler's intelligence scales with deviant subjects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52 , 913-914.

Tasbihsazan, R., Nettelbeck, T., & Kirby, N. (2003). Predictive validity of the Fagan test of infant intelligence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21 , 585-597.

Tylenda, B., & Brogan, D. T. (2011). More than numbers: Intelligence testing with the intellectually disabled. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 27 , 1-6. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=663 89779&site=ehost-live

Vialle, W. (1994). Profiles of intelligence. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19 , 30-34.

Weber, A. L. (1991). Introduction to psychology. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Wilson, M. S., & Reschly, D. J. (1996). Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology Review, 25 , 9-23.

Wyver, S. R., & Markham, R. 91998). Do children with visual impairments demonstrate superior short-term memory, memory strategies and metamemory? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92 , 799-811.

Zimet, S. G., & Adler, S. S. (1990). Methodological and clinical issues in studies of the performance of emotionally disturbed children and adolescents on abbreviated forms of the WISC-R: A review. Journal of School Psychology, 28 , 133-146.

Intelligence Scales in Education

On this Page

Subject Terms

Intelligence Scales in Education

Overview

History

Table 1 The Calculation of IQs from Mental Age & Chronological Age

Applications

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading